On 2022-11-30 We 11:36, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On November 30, 2022 3:47:32 AM PST, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> >> wrote: >>> I think Alvaro's point is that it would have been better to work out >>> these wrinkles before turning on JIT by default. Based on anecdotal >>> reports from the field I'm inclined to agree. >> The problem is that back when it was introduced these problems didn't exist >> to a significant degree. JIT was developed when partitioning was very >> minimal- and the problems we're seeing are almost exclusively with queries >> with many partitions. The problems really only started much more recently. >> It also wasn't enabled in the first release.. > Well, wherever you want to pin the blame, it seems clear that we > have a problem now. And I don't think flipping back to off-by-default > is the answer -- surely there is some population of users who will > not be happy with that. We really need to prioritize fixing the > cost-estimation problems, and/or tweaking the default thresholds. > >
+1 FTR I am not trying to pin blame anywhere. I think the work that's been done on JIT is more than impressive. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
